Chandrakirti
Nothing has a fixed nature of its own, not even the everyday things we deal with – and the way to see this is to follow every opposing view to its absurd conclusions.
Placement
Madhyamaka commentator at Nalanda (also written Candrakirti): emptiness can only be shown by drawing out the absurd consequences of an opponent’s view, never by independent proofs; even conventional things lack intrinsic nature. Tibet later read Nagarjuna through him.
Key ideas
- Prasangika method (reductio)
- Two truths without intrinsic nature
- Critique of Yogacara and of pramana theory
Influence
Influenced by 1
Nagarjuna
influenced by ✓
Chandrakirti commented on Nagarjuna’s Root Verses in Clear Words (Prasannapada) and defended their method of reductio (prasanga) against Bhavaviveka. Candrakirti, Prasannapada; C. W. Huntington, The Emptiness of Emptiness (1989)
Evidence: also in Wikidata · Wikidata
Nagarjuna › c. 150–250
Influenced 2
Atisha
influenced
Atisha helped bring Chandrakirti’s reading of Nagarjuna to Tibet; his Introduction to the Two Truths draws on Chandrakirti for the view of emptiness. Atisha, Satyadvayavatara, tr. C. Lindtner, “Atisa’s Introduction to the Two Truths, and Its Sources”, Journal of Indian Philosophy 9 (1981)
Evidence: AI draft
Atisha › c. 982–1054
Tsongkhapa
influenced
Tsongkhapa based his Prasangika reading of emptiness on Chandrakirti and commented on his Introduction to the Middle Way in Illumination of the Thought. Tsongkhapa, dGongs pa rab gsal; T. Jinpa, Self, Reality and Reason in Tibetan Philosophy (2002)
Evidence: AI draft
Tsongkhapa › 1357–1419
Criticism
Criticizes 2
Vasubandhu
criticised
Chandrakirti rejected the Yogacara of Vasubandhu’s school: consciousness without external objects, and reflexive self-awareness, are as empty as the objects (Madhyamakavatara VI.45–97). Candrakīrti, Madhyamakāvatāra VI.45–97; C. W. Huntington, The Emptiness of Emptiness, 1989
Evidence: AI draft
Vasubandhu › c. 350–430
Dignaga
criticised
Chandrakirti rejected Dignaga’s epistemology – perception free of concepts and two kinds of object – accepting the means of knowledge only conventionally (Prasannapada I). Candrakīrti, Prasannapadā I; D. Arnold, Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief, 2005
Evidence: AI draft
Dignaga › c. 480–540
Works
The bodhisattva path in ten stages, with a long critique of Yogacara “mind-only” in the sixth.
Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Verses: against independent proofs and against Dignaga’s theory of the means of knowledge.
Position
Chandrakirti wrote commentaries on Nagarjuna’s Verses on the Middle Way and on Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses, and an independent Introduction to the Middle Way with his own commentary. In a dispute that later Tibetan scholars made the basis of their classification of schools, he defended the earlier commentator Buddhapalita against Bhaviveka. Bhaviveka had held that a Madhyamika should prove emptiness with independent syllogisms. Chandrakirti replied that such proofs presuppose that the terms refer to things with their own nature, which is exactly what is in question; the Madhyamika should rather show by reductio (prasanga) that the opponent’s own premises lead to absurd consequences. Tibetans therefore called his line “Prasangika”. For Chandrakirti even conventional truth, the world of ordinary transactions, is not made of things with intrinsic nature; it is simply what the world accepts, and philosophy should not try to improve on it. On this ground he rejected Dignaga’s theory of the means of valid knowledge as a foundation, and in the sixth chapter of the Introduction he criticised Yogacara’s claim that only consciousness is real: mind is as empty as its objects. His analysis of the self through the image of a chariot, which is neither identical with its parts nor different from them, became a standard argument. Atisha named him as the one who had understood Nagarjuna, and Tsongkhapa built the Gelug reading of emptiness on him.
Life & context
Little is known of Chandrakirti’s life; scholars place him in the first half of the 7th century CE. Tibetan historians, writing centuries later, say that he was born in South India, became a monk and taught at the great monastery of Nalanda in Bihar, where he is said to have debated the Yogacara layman Chandragomin, and that he performed miracles such as milking a painted cow. His works were not translated into Chinese and had little influence in India for several centuries. From the late 11th century they were studied in Kashmir and translated into Tibetan, above all by Patsab Nyima Drak, and in Tibet he became the leading authority on Madhyamaka.
Further main works
- Commentary on Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Verses (Catuhshatakatika)
- Commentary on Nagarjuna’s Sixty Verses on Reasoning (Yuktishashtikavritti)
As of November 2026 · Sources · Improve this page · How Agora is made